314
submitted 6 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Donald Trump‘s inner circle doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won.

Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court — after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power — was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump’s criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated.

“We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 169 points 6 months ago

We know why we're hated; it's why those of us who strive to exemplify professionalism, ethics, and civility are so angry and depressed. It's why I've been having a career crisis because I always wanted to go into law, but only to do good, and now it feels like there is so little legitimacy to the judicial branch.

Fuck the people who abuse the rule of law until there is none, fuck Trump and his cronies, and fuck SCOTUS for fucking us. Now excuse me, I have to go cry in a corner.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago

You can always bail. I did. That JD is wildly useful in other industries. Over a third of the people I'm still in contact with from my graduating class aren't actively practicing anymore.

[-] Cringedrif@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

And that's the end game for the shit bags that abuse the system. They don't want a legitimate judicial system. It's now about how can they gain the most money and power.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

Lawyers need a Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (and hold errant lawyers accountable for malpractice) before the public will trust a lawyer.

[-] xhieron@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

We (lawyers) are actually already ethically obligated to serve up bad lawyers for discipline. It's Rule 8.3, colloquially known as the duty to rat out your colleagues.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who's harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients' interests, period.

The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn't nearly the longest case I've had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we've been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.

[-] VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Don't know if you know this but Hippocratic oath is a) voluntary and b) not enforceable for people who work in medicine. Also the Hippocratic oath came from medics treating enemy soldiers on battlefields. The idea being that a medical professional wouldn't refuse to treat someone because the patient they're treating clashes with their personal beliefs. Modern example being a Christian nurse or Dr refusing to treat a gay patient.

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 months ago

Well you literally can't enforce it. Take surgery, for example. In surgery, you must first do some harm so that you can do significantly more good.

[-] interrobang@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 6 months ago

I appreciate you. I had a good lawyer take up my wrongful termination case, back when i was idealistic.

He knew i was right, but on paper they skirted the law. He put in the work to get me unemployment & keep me housed, and he never even billed me.

Thank you for trying. I know its hard.

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

I knew a guy who wanted to be a lawyer for the same reasons. Got his degree and passed the bar, then quit and went back to school for biomed. He said he loved law itself, but realized he hated pretty much every coworker and every client, and he knew if he stayed in it he'd become a person he hated as well.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Mo' like SCROTUS.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

You could be a public defender, or do pro bono work. I'm sure that'd feel nice

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I'm fortunate enough to be practicing in a field that does help people (though not nearly as much as I'd like...someone give me Elon's money and then I'll be able to make a real difference). The problem is that lawyers/judges like the ones who are handling cases like Trump's are destroying the rule of law, the efficacy of the courts, and doing whatever they can to dismantle the very system we use to determine whether we have rights or not (dismantle it and the answer is a very clear "not"). The US legal system is already a clusterfuck with not enough budget and inequitable treatment depending on who you are; if things like precedent no longer mean anything, as SCOTUS has recently started making clear, then the legal system becomes completely unnavigable.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I like you. I prefer my lawyers to be a shield rather than a sword.

this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
314 points (95.6% liked)

News

23287 readers
1580 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS